Despite the fact that the development of the R2P principle has occurred in parallel to significant developments in the field of gender on the international scene, gender remains a neglected topic in the central documents and debates related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). There is therefore a need to consider how gender may be integrated into R2P policies and practices. This article suggests that this discussion may be structured around two gender perspectives, which are guided by the questions of ‘where are the women?’ and ‘how does gender work?’ respectively. The first gender perspective involves identifying women’s experiences in connection with mass atrocities and taking into account their role as agents in the commissioning, as well as the prevention of, and protection against, such atrocities. The second gender perspective involves investigating what work gender is doing in the context of mass atrocities. Here, the focus is specifically on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and how this is based on, and serves to maintain or reinforce, certain notions of femininity and masculinity. Based on these two gender perspectives, the article presents a series of recommendations for the development of R2P policies and practices.
By May200916national action plans had been adopted in addition to resolutions and strategies by several regional organisations see Torunn L. Tryggestad ‘Trick or Treat? The UN and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women Peace and Security’ Global Governance 15/4 (2009) p. 556 n. 53.
Ibid. p. 552.
S/RES/1820 19 June2008.
S/RES/1888 30 September2009.
Bond and Sherret‘A Sight for Sore Eyes’ p. 24 22-25.
Hilary Charlesworth‘Feminist Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect’Global Responsibility to Protect2/2 (2010) pp. 232-249; Shelina Ali ‘Gender Mainistreaming in Canadian Human Security Policy: The Limitations of Bureaucratic and Security Discourses’ Innovations: A journal of Politics 8 (2008-2009) pp. 34-58; Axworthy and Rock ‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’; Bellamy Responsibility to protect; Bond and Sherret ‘A Sight for Sore Eyes’.
Sandra WhitworthMen Militarism and UN Peacekeeping. A Gendered Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers2004); Johanna Valenius ‘A Few Kind Women: Gender Essentialism and Nordic Peacekeeping Operations’ International Peacekeeping 14/4 (2007) pp. 510-523; Dyan Mazurana Angela Raven-Roberts and Jane Parpart (eds.) Gender Conflict and Peacekeeping (Boulder Colo: Rwoman and Littlefield 2005).
Zarkov:‘The Body of the Other Man’ pp. 73-80. For more on male victims of SGBV see John Tosh ‘Hegemonic Masculinity and the History of Gender’ in Stefan Dudink Karen Hagemann and John Tosh (eds.) Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History (Manchester: Manchester University Press 2004); Ronit Lentin (ed.) Gender and Catastrophe (London and New York: Zed Books 1997); Susie Jacobs Ruth Jacobson and Jennifer Marchbank States of Conflict: Gender Violence and Resistance (London and New York: Zed Books 2000); Moser and Clark (eds.) Victims Perpetrators or Actors?